[dduckwessel]

I believe I am on topic as the writings themselves state they were divinely authored.

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

How could the translators go wrong if they kept to the script? They took a word from Hebrew or Aramaic and matched it with an English word (or whatever) that had the same meaning! Of course it was much more complicated than that but if they used the same interpreting rules consistently throughout, would end up with a comparable rendering.

What I find truly amazing is that the books were initially passed on through oral tradition, then written in symbols and finally in writing, yet managed to retain their uniqueness and finally the exact same writing style picked up in the NT (which is considered to be very different from OT)!

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 09 June 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

I believe I am on topic as the writings themselves state they were divinely authored.

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

How could the translators go wrong if they kept to the script? They took a word from Hebrew or Aramaic and matched it with an English word (or whatever) that had the same meaning! Of course it was much more complicated than that but if they used the same interpreting rules consistently throughout, would end up with a comparable rendering.

What I find truly amazing is that the books were initially passed on through oral tradition, then written in symbols and finally in writing, yet managed to retain their uniqueness and finally the exact same writing style picked up in the NT (which is considered to be very different from OT)!

you're a caution ducky. the styles in fact are not alike and we have elucidated that here in this thread. i do hope you have taken the time to read articles at the links provided as we are limited in the amount of material we are allowed to quote. that is the De rigeur of this place. those transcribers/translators had their own biasses and agendas and to presume they kept to the script is -to put it mildly- unsupported musings. i'll leave it to one of our language experts to Q up on some of your language issues if they care; i'm more onto the historical archaeological bent.

how could translators go wwrong...??? good grief you're a caution.

[dduckwessel]

HydrogenBond, on 09 October 2006 - 12:13 PM, said:

If one looks at the red lettered versions of certain bibles, these are the quotes said to come directly from Christ. One of the things Christ talked about was leaving behind a comforter; the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit). This additon to religion via Christianity meant that things were not meant to be carved in stone, but were meant to evolve with time.

It was meant to be carved in stone, literally, as there were two stone tablets that contained the Law of the Testimony. The Holy Spirit would teach and be a witness to that law.

Quote

Back then Christ said" blessed are the poor and it is with difficulty that a rich man will enter heaven" How many people are willing to give up all they own to be consistent with the orginal version?

The words are 'blessed are the poor (in spirit)'. Those that are poor in spirit are those to whom the Holy Spirit could teach the Law of the Testimony to. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to 'sell all you have and give to the poor', he was speaking of 'the poor in spirit' [sell your old knowledge of what you think the kingdom of heaven is like and give that knowledge freely to those who want it (poor in spirit)]:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3)

Jesus would never tell anyone to give away their goods or money for that must be a free will decision.

[dduckwessel]

Turtle, on 09 June 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

the styles in fact are not alike and we have elucidated that here in this thread.

If they're not alike then how is it possible to do the following:


And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God and he was not; for God took him.” (OT Bible, Genesis 5:22-23)

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (NT Bible, Hebrews 11:5)

Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2. And his activities had to do with the Watchers (angels), and his days were with the holy ones” (brackets mine).” (Book of Enoch Chap. 12)

…and those men said to me. ‘Have courage Enoch, do not fear, the Eternal God sent us to you, and Lo! Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven... (Book of Enoch Chapter One)

…one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side. (OT Bible Ezekiel 9:2b)

…since the Lord chose you, rather than all men on earth, and designated you writer of all his creation…” (Book of Enoch Chapter XLIV)

And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate. (OT Bible, Ezekiel 40:3) line = a (carpenter's) scribing-awl (for pricking or scratching measurements)

“I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.” (OT Bible, Zechariah 2:1)

Synonyms: line of flax/measuring reed or rod/writer’s inkhorn/plumb line/plummet

Without the Book of Enoch we could not know that the man with the writer’s inkhorn in Ezekiel and the man with the measuring line (having to do with writing) in Zechariah are one and the same, Enoch!

I can do this with all of the Bible and these topics branch off to other subjects.

[dduckwessel]

The PBS documentary by NOVA/The Bible's Buried Secrets is very good but long. You should watch this when there are no distractions. I watched most of it but still feel like I missed a lot and plan to watch it again.

Some notable points is there is no archeological evidence for a mass exodus, as reported in Exodus.

According to the Bible itself the exodus was not just comprised of Israelites but a 'mixed' bunch of people (Exodus 12:36), which is something most Christians don't know and I didn't know (I've never done a study on it).

Noah's ark contained 'by sevens' male and female of every clean animal and 2 of every (male and female) unclean animal (Gen. 7:2), news to me but again, I've never studied this. However, 7:8-9 & 15 mention only 2.

The documentary noted another seeming Biblical discrepancy of the Ark story. It says in one part that it rained '40 days and 40 nights' (7:4) but then it says "the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days" (Gen. 7:24 and 8:3). I can explain this apparent discrepancy. It rained 40 days and nights but took 150 days for the waters to abate (Noah and his family and the animals were in the Ark were a total of one year, seventeen days).

Another apparent Ark discrepancy the documentary noted was that Noah sent out a raven in 8:7 but it didn't return. So he sent a dove in 8:8,she returned because she couldn't find 'rest for the sole of her foot' and 7 days later was sent out again and returned with an olive leaf. Which brings up the question, what happened to the raven? A raven is a scavenger bird, a dove is not.

Still there is no geological evidence to support a global flood (mine).

Excavations found evidence of both David and Solomon within the time line specified in the OT.

It was mentioned the Israelites were originally Canaanites but Abraham was from Ur which is Assyrian. (Sarai was Abraham's half sister).


Oh yes, I forgot to mention the biggie, 'God had a wife', at least her name was found inscribed on rock (can't remember the exact, I should have written it down). However, it could have been in reference to Ashtoreth (this goddess had other alias's) that the Israelites sometimes sacrificed their own children to. However, when the Israelites were strictly monotheistic they did not practice human sacrifice but when they followed the teachings of the countries around them, would commit barbaric acts.

Many finds of personal idols in home dwellings revealed that many of the Israelites were not monotheistic, which is not new because in the OT, God was always rebuking the Israelites for their idolatry.


I think the Yahoo article title was one-sided because there was evidence that some Biblical narration was in sync with archeological findings.

[sineaste]

dduckwessel, on 09 June 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

As for re-writing, the many translations were obviously done by human beings (a huge accomplishment) but overall very little has been lost in translation, especially in the KJV. An exception is The Good News Bible that para-phrased everything and so completely lost the unusual aspect to the writings.

I agree that that paraphrases like the Living Bible and others are not particularly helpful. On the other hand, the KJV has some problems as well. The major one is simply its archaic form of English - unless you are talking about the New King James. If you check the article on Textual Criticism in Wikipedia you will see that, for the New Testament, older translations like the King James Bible are based on inferior textual traditions and likely to contain more harmonistic readings, paraphrasing, and significant additions than modern translations based on more accurate text types. This is because the KJV was based on a late textual tradition (Byzantine) that spanned the 5th to the 16th centuries, whereas most modern translations favor earlier manuscript traditions like the Alexandrian (2nd to 4th century). Simply put, earlier manuscripts of the "New Testament" writings are likely to be more accurate than those copied centuries later. Additionally, when the KJV was written we did not have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls which have provided a wealth of early (c100BCE to 100CE) copies of "Old Testament" works. Previously, translators had to work with "Old Testament" manuscripts that date around the 10th century CE.

Personally, I prefer the New International Version as a reasonably solid modern translation that is easy to read and understand.

[Michaelangelica]

The more interesting question is:-
Why does anyone care?

[sineaste]

dduckwessel, on 09 June 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

The words are 'blessed are the poor (in spirit)'. Those that are poor in spirit are those to whom the Holy Spirit could teach the Law of the Testimony to. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to 'sell all you have and give to the poor', he was speaking of 'the poor in spirit' [sell your old knowledge of what you think the kingdom of heaven is like and give that knowledge freely to those who want it (poor in spirit)]:

Jesus would never tell anyone to give away their goods or money for that must be a free will decision.

Mark 10:21 reads 'go sell everything you have and give to the poor'. The story of the "rich young ruler" is found in all three synoptic gospels and none of them say anything about the "poor in spirit". We are specifically told that the rich man had "great wealth" and the story is followed by Jesus talking about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. His disciples respond that they have 'left everything' to follow Jesus and this includes not only family but "fields". Suggesting that the message is: pass on your defective knowledge to the "poor in spirit" makes no sense. There is no justification for interpreting this story in non-literal fashion. It is also worth noting that when we read the story in Luke (chapter 18), the very next chapter starts with the story of another rich man - Zaccheus - who gives half of his possessions to the poor and vows to repay four times over any money obtained by corrupt means. It is very hard to spiritualize away this story or suggest that it bears no relation to the themes of the previous chapter.


The words "blessed are the poor" are being quoted from the Lukan, rather than the Matthean beatitudes. Here is the full text:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Unsurprisingly, this version is seldom heard from pulpits by comfortable, middle class Western Christians. As the shorter version, Luke's is more likely to be the original one. Matthew's version softens the impact and focuses more on piety than economic circumstances. If you don't feel that the gospels had anything to say about poverty, I suggest you read right through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John looking for relevant stories and sayings. I think you will be surprised by what you find and by the amount of material that addresses the question of wealth.

Please note that in the beatitudes what Jesus is doing is placing himself on the side of the poor rather than advocating poverty as an ideal. There is nothing wrong with wealth as such, but the reason the rich are condemned here is due to the social juxtaposition of wealth and poverty. In other words Jesus would have no reason to condemn the rich if they did not ignore the appalling poverty on their own doorstep, as it were. See the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) for a vivid dramatization of this point. As the above text states, Jesus sees himself and his followers as the inheritors of the prophetic tradition of Israel. The prophets were particularly scathing when it came to institutional injustice, corruption, and lack of concern for the weaker members of Israelite society (e.g. Isaiah 1). Like the prophets, Jesus' followers could expect to excite violent opposition and hatred. Ask yourself if the message 'blessed are the poor in spirit' is really likely to arouse such opposition.

The time of Jesus was one in which the greed of local rulers and the demands of Rome resulted in severe taxation burdens causing widespread poverty and hardship in the regions around Galilee. In the gospels, when Jesus finally condemns Jerusalem and its leaders and predicts the destruction of the city, he does so immediately after telling the story of a poor widow who has given the last of her money to the temple coffers, leaving her impoverished. Jesus final period of teaching in the temple is preceded by the so called "cleansing" of the temple in which he overturns the tables of moneychangers and characterizes the temple administration as a "den of thieves".

Both versions of the beatitudes are strongly orientated towards a future in which present day realities will be turned upside down. Jesus uses politically dangerous language about an alternative "kingdom" (Rome was the official empire) to which the poor, weak and powerless will be admitted but not the unmerciful, war mongers, persecutors, the impure, and the proud. A such, they issue a stark challenge to affluent believers who take the name of Christ but do little to comfort those who are damned and forgotten by mainstream socitey.